Jim Stillman
Randy InmanWhy everyone should support the ACLU
April 24th 2008 19:19
In the motion picture, The American President, Andrew Shepherd, the President of the United States, speaks about the real meaning of liberty and freedom,
The beauty and grandeur of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights is that it is designed, intentionally, to protect the minority, the unpopular, the rebel against governmental action and penalty. Two points need to be stressed.
First, with some legislative exceptions, the Constitution does not grant rights to individuals. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress (extended to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment) from “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” A private company or individual’s rights to restrict speech on its or his property is not affected. While, by virtue of the Second Amendment, a governmental body may impose restrictions on gun possession, nothing in the Constitution prevents a private employer from prohibiting guns on its private property.
Second, our Constitution and system of laws are not designed to protect the interests of the majority, the popular, and the agreeable. Those who need protection are the unpopular, the minority, and the despised among us.
Many of us will agree to these principles, at least in theory. It is when specifics are considered that convictions seem to diminish.
For example, should a group of Nazis be allowed to parade through a Jewish neighborhood?
Should Christian prayer be part of a public school graduation ceremony, in a part of the country where the majority of the people strongly wish for it?
How may the topic of Intelligent Design, a theory of creation and non-Darwinian development, based on the Old Testament, be introduced or taught in public schools without, in effect, giving governmental adoption of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem faiths? And if Judeo-Christian prayers are allowed (whatever they may be), what about the doctrines of Theistic Satanism?
How may the War on Terror be conducted without sacrificing everything that makes us unique? In that light, the ACLU’s statement in September, 2002, is illustrative:
What are the rights and protections afforded those accused of a crime?
These and many, many other issues are at the cornerstone of our country’s values.
If the rights of individuals have any meaning whatsoever, those individuals need a spokesman, a champion.
That champion is the American Civil Liberties Union.
There are many voices raised against the ACLU, many epithets thrown about, both from the far right and the far left. The ACLU is clearly not the emotional choice of the majority – it is not supposed to be. The majority is well protected by the electoral process. The minorities need the voice of protection.
“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, and celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”
First, with some legislative exceptions, the Constitution does not grant rights to individuals. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress (extended to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment) from “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” A private company or individual’s rights to restrict speech on its or his property is not affected. While, by virtue of the Second Amendment, a governmental body may impose restrictions on gun possession, nothing in the Constitution prevents a private employer from prohibiting guns on its private property.
Second, our Constitution and system of laws are not designed to protect the interests of the majority, the popular, and the agreeable. Those who need protection are the unpopular, the minority, and the despised among us.
Many of us will agree to these principles, at least in theory. It is when specifics are considered that convictions seem to diminish.
For example, should a group of Nazis be allowed to parade through a Jewish neighborhood?
Should Christian prayer be part of a public school graduation ceremony, in a part of the country where the majority of the people strongly wish for it?
How may the topic of Intelligent Design, a theory of creation and non-Darwinian development, based on the Old Testament, be introduced or taught in public schools without, in effect, giving governmental adoption of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem faiths? And if Judeo-Christian prayers are allowed (whatever they may be), what about the doctrines of Theistic Satanism?
How may the War on Terror be conducted without sacrificing everything that makes us unique? In that light, the ACLU’s statement in September, 2002, is illustrative:
"It is important to understand that the people who planned, financed and executed the Sept. 11 atrocities despise our values as much as they despise our wealth and power... If we are intimidated to the point of restricting our freedoms and undermining our democracy, the terrorists will have won a resounding victory indeed.
“Long-term vigilance is essential, because the war on terrorism, unlike conventional past wars, will not come to a visible, decisive end any time soon. Any civil-liberties restrictions imposed may be with us for a very long time... The war on terror is also a war of ideas if we are really serious about preventing further attacks; it is not enough to become better spies...
“Americans question whether the new anti-terrorism laws are upsetting the system of checks and balances that are fundamental to our democracy; they are fulfilling a civic responsibility. And when others decry the detention of hundreds of immigrants for reasons that have nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, they are performing a necessary task."
“Long-term vigilance is essential, because the war on terrorism, unlike conventional past wars, will not come to a visible, decisive end any time soon. Any civil-liberties restrictions imposed may be with us for a very long time... The war on terror is also a war of ideas if we are really serious about preventing further attacks; it is not enough to become better spies...
“Americans question whether the new anti-terrorism laws are upsetting the system of checks and balances that are fundamental to our democracy; they are fulfilling a civic responsibility. And when others decry the detention of hundreds of immigrants for reasons that have nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, they are performing a necessary task."
What are the rights and protections afforded those accused of a crime?
These and many, many other issues are at the cornerstone of our country’s values.
If the rights of individuals have any meaning whatsoever, those individuals need a spokesman, a champion.
That champion is the American Civil Liberties Union.
There are many voices raised against the ACLU, many epithets thrown about, both from the far right and the far left. The ACLU is clearly not the emotional choice of the majority – it is not supposed to be. The majority is well protected by the electoral process. The minorities need the voice of protection.
| 53 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity